Show simple item record

Reporting missing participant data in randomised trials: systematic survey of the methodological literature and a proposed guide

Authordc.contributor.authorAkl, Elie A 
Authordc.contributor.authorShawwa, Khaled 
Authordc.contributor.authorKahale, Lara A. 
Authordc.contributor.authorAgoritsas, Thomas 
Authordc.contributor.authorBrignardello Petersen, Romina 
Authordc.contributor.authorBusse, Jason W. 
Authordc.contributor.authorCarrasco Labra, Alonso 
Authordc.contributor.authorEbrahim, Shanil 
Authordc.contributor.authorJohnston, Bradley C. 
Authordc.contributor.authorNeumann, Ignacio 
Authordc.contributor.authorSolà, Iván 
Authordc.contributor.authorSun, Xin 
Authordc.contributor.authorVandvik, Per 
Authordc.contributor.authorZhang, Yuqing 
Authordc.contributor.authorAlonso Coello, Pablo 
Authordc.contributor.authorGuyatt, Gordon H. 
Cita de ítemdc.identifier.citationBMJ Open 2015;5:e008431.en_US
Identifierdc.identifier.otherDOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008431
General notedc.descriptionArtículo de publicación ISIen_US
Abstractdc.description.abstractObjectives We conducted a systematic survey of the methodological literature to identify recommended approaches for how and what randomised clinical trial (RCT) authors should report on missing participant data and, on the basis of these approaches, to propose guidance for RCT authors. Methods We defined missing participant data (MPD) as missing outcome data for trial participants. We considered both categorical and continuous outcome data. We searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane Methodology Register for articles in which authors proposed approaches to reporting MPD from RCTs. We selected eligible articles independently and in duplicate and extracted data in duplicate. Using an iterative process of discussion and revisions, we used the findings to develop guidance. Results Of 10501 unique citations identified, 13 articles reporting on 10 approaches proved eligible. The identified approaches recommend reporting the following aspects (from most to least frequently recommended): number of participants with MPD (n=10), reasons for MPD (n=7), methods used to handle MPD in the analysis (n=4), flow of participants (n=3), pattern of missingness (eg, whether at random) (n=3), differences in rates of MPD between trial arms (n=2), differences between participants with and without MPD (n=2), results of any sensitivity analyses (n=2), implication of MPD on interpreting the results (n=2) and methods used to prevent missing data (n=1). We propose a guide with nine items related to reporting the number, reasons, patterns, analytical methods and interpretation of MPD. Conclusions Most identified approaches invite trial authors to report the extent of MPD and the underlying reasons. Fewer approaches focus on reporting missingness patterns, methods for handling MPD and implications of MPD on results. Our proposed guidance could help RCT authors to better report, and readers to better identify participants with missing data.en_US
Publisherdc.publisherBMJ Publishing Groupen_US
Type of licensedc.rightsAtribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 3.0 Chile*
Link to Licensedc.rights.uri*
Keywordsdc.subjectMissing participant dataen_US
Keywordsdc.subjectRandomized clinical trialsen_US
Keywordsdc.subjectSystematic reviewsen_US
Títulodc.titleReporting missing participant data in randomised trials: systematic survey of the methodological literature and a proposed guideen_US
Document typedc.typeArtículo de revistaen_US

Files in this item


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 3.0 Chile
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 3.0 Chile